Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-07-13

CONCLUSIONS
We believe that careful consideration of the
facts gathered by us will tend to establish the
following points:
flrst-That the assess mems in Sacramento
county are most unequslly equalized
seeond.That, generally speaking, the assess
proportlonately much lower than on those the
south of 1t.
Thfrd-That, generally speaking, the small
pieces OF land, especially ii improved, are as
| sessed at more per acre than the same quality
OF land held in larger tracts and not contfguou.
| to such small pieces.
Fourth-That small pieces near large tract.
which have been assessed low, bear a low assess
ment too while land no more valuable i'm the
market and father removed from such tracts is
assessed at good round figure. Either there is
some system in these assessments or else those
who have secured the large tracts referred tc
have curiously picked the very poorest land "a
be found in the county!
In reference to the first point, we believe the
entire roll should, If possible, be carefully re-
vised and equalized by competent and impartial
men, and when such men are found they should
be retained III Office With regard to the second
point, the evil has resulted in Our Opiuion from
allowing one deputy to fix the assessments IN a
certain district year after year. Il would prob.
ably be better, surprising the deputies 10 be com
petent judges of county property, to have two
or more OF them make entirely Independent as
sessments on the same district, and in case OF
discrepancy, the Assessor himself should
investigate and rectify the matter This
NouIG eLldi Increased expense, but IL
would Doubtless repay the county. With
regard to the comparative Injustice done
to small pieces of land tpartcu arly
improved p;ecesl in assessment the cause
thereof, ss candidly explained by Il former Dep
uty Assessor, may indicate the remedy. He
stated, III an iutcrnie". hat each County AS
sor finds it polite 10 keep as low possible the
aggregate OF the county roll in or4er that his
county may not pay more than its fair share OF
state taxes, and that his record may be CORE
spondingly pleasing to his constituents The
at RCar 1fafL
roll of county if they find that 1t is assessed
too low. For the facts to justify any such raise,
they must rely on the records of real estate
transfers. Now small pieces of land change
seldom Consequently if the Assessor Will but
keep the small pieces pretty well up to tn r val
ne rs indicated by the consideration mentioned
IN the transfers, he can keep the large tracts
and those which do not change hands down to
low figure. An injustice is thereby done the
small property holder; but the Assessor outwits
the state Board of Equalization, and the Siluri-
| an, who never cuts up his land for sale grins in
grstliied glee. We have found the same disin-
clination to have the county assessment roll
raised among small county taxpayers and
some. of Them, with remarkable lack OF
| foresight, have opposed the pursuing of the
inquiries instituted by the committee lest
1t should result in Sacramento county paying
more in future towards the State Govern.
ment than she has in the past. The enterpris.
ing residents of the eountydesire their own land
| or their neighbors sold at good prices to the
the surest means of attaining that result is to
| have certificate in big figures on the Assess
or S books that the land is worth something like
what is asked for it. If every acre of land in
the county were assessed at its full cash value
the extra dollars paid by reason thereof into
the state Treasury would bring as many hun
dred from the class of people that we claim we
are anxious to have locate here ard make an
other Los Angeles. In our opinion the Sacra-
mento improvement Association could not do
better work than to interest itself first in the
equalizing of county assessments and then in
having the entire roll raised to d figure closely
approxinating the present cash value of the
property.
In conclusion We would say that we have
endeayored to perform the very responsible
duties intrusted to us in a perfectly impartial
manner and while to make thorough inyes-
tigation of the subject would necessitate months
of labor and corps of assistants we believe
that in the time at our command we have OBJ
tanned facts sufficient to convince the County
Board of Equalization that there are many
grave inconsistencies in the county assessment
roll. to which their attention should be called
by this Association.
All Of which is respectfully submitted
V. s. McCLATcHY,
GEO W. HANCOCK,
DAVID LUBIS,
-